Some interesting articles about VAR. Some comments from Webb himself in regards to it's use in MLS. http://www.espnfc.us/blog/espn-fc-u...ie-a-bundesliga-mls-but-still-work-to-be-done http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-s...-soccer-use-of-var-a-success-says-howard-webb http://www.espnfc.us/blog/espn-fc-u...working-well-in-serie-a-bundesliga-mls-so-far In general, all of these articles are kind of highlighting how VAR has gone "well." I think the stakeholders want this thing to work, but, in my opinion, it isn't going as well as they think it is. I think there have been some positives, but there have been a lot more negatives than positives
Here's one with a much more negative spin. https://deadspin.com/german-soccer-officials-are-realizing-that-video-replay-1820273171
https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...ynamo-vs-colorado-rapids/details/video/133586 Just one example... You can go through the MLS forum and see many more...
This is the "creep" of video review. It all starts because of shocking decisions that give the game/event a black eye. Frank Lampards non-goal. Hand of god. A really bad offside decision in a world cup knockout game. These events make people scream for video replay. The dirty secret is every game in every sport has referee decisions that even professional refs can't agree on the call while the "shockers" aren't really that common. In theory, "clear and obvious errors" are a perfect standard to apply. We want to catch the errors that lead to outrages. We want to stop Henry's handball from deciding the game. Martin Hansson would have loved VAR that night in Paris because he and his family got death threats. The "clear and obvious" errors aren't that common but the "I've seen those given as a penalty" shouts happen almost every game. But there is no clear line between "clear and obvious" and "I've seen those given". It's a curve where you can't get any group of people to agree on where the line should be. Ask an NFL fan what constitutes a catch...
And to add to what @code1390 said, many of the matters that soccer puts into the review are pure judgment decisions rather than objective fact. Video review is perfect for seeing whether the running back in pointy ball stepped on the line, whether the basketball shooter let go of the ball before the buzzer, or whether the first baseman still had his foot on the bag when he caught the ball. But the dividing line between a legal or illegal charge in the PA or between R and EF on a tackle are much harder to see. VAR for soccer would be fine if it were limited to objective things (was the player in OSP at the moment the ball was touched or did it hit his hand or his head), but it wouldn't address the majority of calls that create the outrage--calls that are judgment calls. There is a reason that pointy ball doesn't use VAR for holding and basketball doesn't use VAR for fouls. But soccer didn't learn from that.
Basketball does use review to determine flagrant 1 vs flagrant 2 fouls, which is the equivalent of deciding between a YC and a RC.
And college football uses it to confirm whether a targeting foul (hit to the head and ejection) was correct. Those are both subjective, but they're mostly in the name of player safety.
Fair point--but I think the nature of FF 1 & 2, while subjective, is less subjective than the breadth of factors that go into R & EF.
Also less frequent and typically less consequential, unless a star player is being ejected. In soccer, it’s the inherent subjectivity and the attached consequences of a penalty or red card that matter so much. Yeah, 2 shots and the ball or 15 yards are big, in the context of their sports, but those two things are happening in the aforementioned situations regardless—the only question is ejection or not. And the ejections don’t cause a team to play down permanently. The listed calls are only game-changing sometimes. Red cards and penalties are usually game-changing and, at the very least, always have more of an influence on the game as a whole, rather than a moment in time.
And we are in a circular argument. Look, if one’s approach to sport generally is that every call needs to be right in order for there to be maximum enjoyment, I’ll concede your point. You’re still back to the question to how you establish what “right” is on inherently subjective calls and what the process should be in getting to a final and most correct decision. Is a second look by the referee the path? A video official who has authority over the referee? Simply a single league official who rules from MLS HQ? This experiment is showing that question of process is more difficult to answer than was advertised. I would argue quite strenuously that there’s more to sport than getting every call right. And, in fact, the debates over difficult calls help fuel interest. As does the dynamic nature of sport. The more you slow a game down and try to take controversial decisions out, the lower the overall enjoyment factor and experience is for participants. Sure, you can still design a system to get black-and-white or near objective calls right (goal line decisions, offside, was the ball handled into the net?, etc) so as to eliminate obvious injustice. But if you try to eliminate controversy, you’re never going to get there and you’re going to change the face of the game while you do it. No one ever steps back and asks the question of whether or not trying to get every call right is a virtuous endeavor. I think most people just assume it is. I would argue differently. Focus on injustices. That’s what fans and players and coaches scream about and what infamous legends are made of (see hands of God, frogs and phantom goals). Let controversy stay.
And they are horribly inconsistent at it. Fans hate it and TV commentators have no clue what the review call is going to be. They have review opportunities both to ring down and say "it's targeting, stop and eject the player" and to confirm or reject a call made on the field. And they seem to miss it on the field when given the opportunity to interject and when called upon to confirm or reject the call on the field you wonder what in the world they basing their decision on. Every time? No. But it's a significant percentage. That's what I feel like watching VAR in action. You just throw your hands up and wonder what in the world are they basing their decision on.
I think VAR has been by and large a failure for me and hasn't really improved the overall accuracy of decisions and hasn't really had a positive impact on the game. The decisions you mentioned though do make me think there is a place for VAR in major international tournaments. I think the negatives and drawbacks of the system are worth having in place every four/two years. The whole basis and justification for VAR by Webb and others is to prevent referees from having career ending/scarring decisions. Aren't all of those at the World Cup pretty much? We've all seen Webb make some horrific decisions on EPL games and no remembers them. We all remember De Jong? I just don't think it makes much sense to have it week and week out in the domestic game. Is it really that important to disallow a goal for an attacker being two inches offside on a game in the middle of July in Dallas? Is it that important? Is it that important to award a penalty on a EPL match between Stoke and West Ham in December? Also, a domestic league season is pretty long with a large sample size so one decision in a 38 league season isn't going to make a big difference. It is why I think baseball using replay during a 162 game season is just absurd, basketball using replay to get out of bounds decisions right in an 82 game regular season is even more preposterous. I think VAR can work on major finals and major tournaments as a safeguard to prevent games being blighted by terrible decisions that you mentioned above. I don't think it can work on a week to week basis.
So, from a MLS POV, use it in the playoffs, MLS Cup, and the USOC from some round on (Round of 16? Quarters?)?
The biggest issue I have is that VAR is really only useful on objective decisions. For American football, these are more plentiful. Did the ball cross the goal line before the knee was down? Did the receiver get two feet in bounds? Most soccer decisions like that are few and far between. VAR would have worked on the England "goal" vs. Germany in the 2010 World Cup. It can catch obvious off the ball violent conduct red cards. Other than that, what is truly objective? Would Robben's "no era penal" been overturned with VAR, for example? I will contend as long as I watch soccer that if I was forced to choose a single refereeing advancement to use, it would be goal line assistants. I thought they added a great deal of value to the Euro 2016 tournament. Goal line technology is good, but it's really expensive to implement league wide.
But I don't think it can work unless it is used on a week by week basis to develop the skills and familiarity to make it work smoothly. And if you put those two things together....
I still think Goal-Line technology is superior, however, AAR are great for critical foul/no foul decisions PK's. Which I believe are the most talked about decisions, next to offside calls, and questionable yellow card tackles.
I'm a fan of GLT as well. The only reason I'd disagree with your assessment is that most of the time, goal line assistants would be in a position to see a ball that has crossed the line. There's still a human element that GLT removes, but it seems like that having goal line assistants there to help with those big PK/no PK decisions is a more prevalent situation than when a ball is a goal or not. I think we both can agree that GLT and goal line assistants are currently better than VAR!
Ideally, you don't need an "other than that." VAR should only be used for objective, and truly obvious subjective calls. It's use should be rare...maybe once every three or four games. Now obviously, the current system has strayed far from that path...now we only have to decide if we should toss the baby out with the bathwater, or work to make it better.
I would not be opposed to the VAR protocols being modified to only handle the following scenarios: Objective decisions regarding boundary lines or Offside - e.g. Lampard's WC "goal" / MLS Cup 2015-type decisions, or the Offside between Mexico & Argentina (?) in WC 2010 with Rosetti; Crystal clear scenarios where the Referee's decision of commission or omission is wrong to everyone - e.g. Webb not sending off de Jong, obvious dives, obvious penalties where the ref crew is shielded, and the like. In other words, it should be used when the decision is...wait for it..."clearly & obviously wrong" to everyone. In an ideal setting, the VAR would tell the crew on the field the decision and the crew would know that if they're being told the answer, then they were obviously wrong to begin with. No second-guessing. No on-field review. If it's not clear enough for the VAR to sit back, light a cigar, sip a well-aged bourbon, casually glance at the screen, and still clearly see that the call was wrong, then let it be. As with anything MLS touches, the system that we see in the US is not currently in a status where it can sustain long-term success. Having a decision-making tree that primarily involves the comments sections on video highlights is not the best way to do business.
Your entire post is very good, but I want to focus on this for a moment. I've seen more of MLS, obviously, than other competitions. But I've seen enough "highlights" from Australia, Italy, and Germany--not to mention the FIFA U20s and Confed Cup--to know these problems exist elsewhere, too. So I would just be careful on framing this as "MLS has screwed up a perfect viable system," as other leagues have faced the same struggles. And it all goes to the correct points you made with your two bullet points. Bullet point 1 is easy (notwithstanding the important question of whether or not offside is always objectively determinable). Bullet point 2 inherently invites mission creep, because it's trying to apply an objective standard to subjective decisions. Finding a way to halt that mission creep, establish consistency of application, and ensure that players, coaches, fans and the powers that be understand there is a very high hurdle for "clearly and obviously wrong" and they are not always (or often) going to be happy is the challenge. I've maintained from the beginning that this challenge is impossible to overcome.
Take this with a grain of salt because I'm not watching VAR in Germany and Italy, but it seems that MLS has probably done the best job with VAR so far. The "Howard Webb" of German VAR was forced to step down over accusations he was pressuring VAR decisions for Schalke. We've had nothing like that here.
I completely agree with this, and it is why I have opposed VAR from the start (and why my mind has never changed--and this is before we talk about the negative impact on the flow of the beautiful game). GLT is better for "did the goal score" and other out of play issues, frankly, aren't important enough to warrant having VAR. For OSP at the time of touch, sure, it can help. As well as for "oh, crap, who am I supposed to caution" scenarios. But again, those are not sufficiently common, IMO, to warrant VAR existing. So VAR, for soccer, can only be justified if it is also going to be used for "clear and obvious" judgment calls. But almost by definition, it is going to be impossible to find a clear dividing line between what is clearly and obviously wrong and what is just simply wrong. And that means it won't get rid of the horrors, it will just change what they are. It moves from "how could he miss that" to "how could they not correct that when we can see it was wrong and they looked at it." We don't eliminate controversy when a country gets eliminated from the WC on penalty kick that was only 79% wrong when the standard for correcting with VAR is 80% wrong.
The Italy vs. Sweden game is a perfect example of why VAR won't work. The first penalty appeal, when the Italian attacker got bungled over/tripped from behind, while a penalty is certainly not enough of a miss to warrant a review. I think we can all say it's a defensible miss. The second appeal where the handling occurred is certainly enough to warrant a review. Then the rest of the game and the other appeals become a hot mess. On what other appeals do you intervene and which ones you don't. It puts the VAR in an impossible situation and the whole story is about why VAR acted on this incident and not on that one.